Re: ISSUE-130 / ACTION-194 Come up with a proposal for conformance

> Ian Horrocks wrote:
> >>
> >> * 1.2.1
> >>
> >>   """
> >>   An OWL 2 RL entailment checker
> >>   [...] MUST return True only when O1 entails O2,
> >>   and it must return False
> >>   only when FO(O1) ? R does not entail FO(O2)
> >>   under the standard first-order semantics
> >>   """
> >>
> 
> This is again a naming issue, a bit like Michael's question on how to
> refer to RDF vs. model theoretical semantics. But what exactly do we
> mean here by 'standard first order semantics'? I have an idea, for sure,
> but we may have to at least put a clear reference here... (RIF?)

Yeah, I hope we can transition the rules to being written in RIF and
just use a RIF reference.   Someone needs to do that work, though.

       -- Sandro